Money-laundering requires a traceable scheduled offence; unparticularised fund allegations are insufficient and bail may follow.

Money-laundering under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act requires a prima facie scheduled offence, property derived from that criminal activity, and projection of that property as untainted. Where the prosecution cannot satisfactorily establish the scheduled offence said to have generated the funds, foreign bank accounts and large transactions alone do not prove proceeds of crime. The burden-shifting provision does not remove the prosecution's foundational duty to show a specific scheduled offence and a traceable nexus with the alleged funds. On the facts described, the material was insufficient to sustain the money-laundering case, and bail was granted because continued detention was not justified on unparticularised allegations.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the material disclosed a prima facie case of money-laundering under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, when the alleged foundation of the case did not satisfactorily establish any scheduled offence generating proceeds of crime. (ii) Whether the applicant was entitled to bail in the absence of a clear and traceable nexus between the alleged funds and any scheduled offence and in view of the stage of investigation and trial.

Issue (i): Whether the material disclosed a prima facie case of money-laundering under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, when the alleged foundation of the case did not satisfactorily establish any scheduled offence generating proceeds of crime.

Analysis: The offence of money-laundering requires a scheduled offence, property derived or obtained from criminal activity relating to that offence, and projection of such property as untainted. The material showed that the applicant had foreign bank accounts and large transactions, but the prosecution did not satisfactorily establish the scheduled offence said to have generated the funds. The reliance on Passport Act violations and the alleged diamond theft did not provide a convincing basis to treat the amounts as proceeds of crime. The burden under section 24 did not relieve the prosecution of the obligation to allege and support the existence of a specific scheduled offence and a nexus with the funds.

Conclusion: The prima facie case of money-laundering was not satisfactorily established against the applicant.

Issue (ii): Whether the applicant was entitled to bail in the absence of a clear and traceable nexus between the alleged funds and any scheduled offence and in view of the stage of investigation and trial.

Analysis: The investigation remained incomplete on crucial aspects, yet the prosecution was unable to proceed with trial on the available material. The Court held that continued detention could not be justified merely on the strength of unparticularised allegations when the source of the money and the generating activity were still untraced. The discretionary bar on bail was not attracted in the manner suggested by the prosecution, and appropriate conditions could secure the applicant's presence.

Conclusion: The applicant was entitled to bail.

Final Conclusion: The bail application succeeded, and the applicant was ordered to be released on bail subject to conditions, while the prayer for stay of the operation of the order was declined.

Ratio Decidendi: For an offence of money-laundering, the prosecution must prima facie establish a scheduled offence and a nexus between that offence and the alleged property as proceeds of crime; the burden-shifting provision does not dispense with that foundational requirement.

---